Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Master thesis
Increasing compliance to a request by means
of the Foot-in-the-door technique or the
Door-in-the-face technique?
Investigation of a potential moderating effect of mood and
buying motivation.
Lotte Sterling
March 2016
FACULTY OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
COMMUNICATION STUDIES
EXAMINATION COMMITTEE
Prof. dr. Ad Pruyn
Dr. Thomas van Rompay
http://www.utwente.nl/en/
1
Table of content
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Theoretical framework ........................................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Social influence ............................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 The Foot-in-the-door technique ..................................................................................................... 7
2.3 The Door-in-the-face technique .................................................................................................... 8
2.4 The influence of mood .................................................................................................................. 9
2.5 The influence of buying motivation ............................................................................................ 11
2.6 Automaticity ................................................................................................................................ 12
3. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Experimental design .................................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Procedure ..................................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Measures ...................................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Research sample .......................................................................................................................... 17
3.5 Reliability .................................................................................................................................... 17
3.6 Participants .................................................................................................................................. 18
4.Results ................................................................................................................................................ 19
4.1 Manipulation check ..................................................................................................................... 19
4.2 Main effects ................................................................................................................................. 19
4.2.1 Type of influence technique .................................................................................................. 21
4.2.2 Mood ..................................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.3 Buying motivation ................................................................................................................. 22
4.3 Interaction effects ........................................................................................................................ 24
4.4 Additional analyses ..................................................................................................................... 26
4.5 Mediation effects ......................................................................................................................... 27
2
5.Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 28
5.1 Discussion of the results .............................................................................................................. 28
5.2 Limitations and future research ................................................................................................... 31
6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 33
References ............................................................................................................................................. 34
Appendix I: Experiment ................................................................................................................ 37
Appendix II: Translated experiment .............................................................................................. 44
Appendix III: Buying motivation stimuli ...................................................................................... 50
3
Abstract
This research investigated which type of influence technique the Foot-in-the-door technique
or the Door-in-the-fact technique is most effective in compliance gaining. Additionally, is
investigated whether there is a moderating effect of mood and buying motivation on the
relationship between type of influence technique and compliance. It was hypothesized that
amount of processing mediated the effects in this research. In total 240 persons participated in
this study, including 143 males and 97 females. The study contained twelve research
conditions, which were based on the type of influence technique (Foot-in-the-door technique/
Door-in-the-face technique), mood (positive/ negative) and buying motivation (positive/
negative). The results of the study indicated that the Foot-in-the-door technique and the Door-
in-the-face technique are equally effective in gaining compliance. This outcome is in line with
the argument of Cialdini (1975) that both influence techniques are equally effective in gaining
compliance. The mediation analysis showed that there was no mediating effect of amount of
processing on the relationship between type of influence technique and compliance or on the
other investigated relationships in this study. Furthermore, positive mood moderated the
relationship between type of influence technique and compliance. In addition, the study
revealed a significant moderating effect of buying motivation. In case of a negative buying
motivation (e.g. painkillers), one has a greater compliance as opposed to a positive buying
motivation (e.g. chewing gum). Additional analyses have shown that gender moderated the
effect of buying motivation on the relationship between type of influence technique and
compliance.
4
1. Introduction
Probably everyone can relate to the question ‘Why did I comply with that fundraiser who
asked me to donate money to charity, to leave personal information, or to buy a certain
product?’ And why was it so difficult to just say ‘no’ to that fundraiser? The answer to that
question is probably due to the fact that a social influence technique is being applied. An
influence technique is in fact a smart persuasion attempt in order to increase the chance one is
saying ‘yes’ to a certain request (compliance).
According to Cialdini and Goldstein (2002) there are multiple social influence techniques
which can be performed in order to gain compliance to a certain request. Compliance refers to
a particular response which is agreement to a particular kind of request. The request could be
either explicit (charitable donations) in which one is by example asked to donate money or
implicit (political advertisements) in which the qualities of the political candidate are
highlighted but one is not directly asked to vote for this politician. Although in both situations
the persuasion target is aware of the fact being encouraged to react in a desired way (Cialdini
& Goldstein, 2004). In addition, according to Cialdini and Goldstein (2004) there are six basic
influence principles which explain how a person might influence another; these principles can
be labeled as: liking, reciprocation, commitment and consistency, scarcity, social validation
(social proof) and authority. As an example an old Chinese proverb states “Favors from others
should be remembered for a thousand years”, which is based on the norm of reciprocity
(Cialdini & Goldstein, 2002). This norm emphasizes that we are (or feel) obliged to repay
others for what we have received from them. This might function as a guideline for our own
behavior but could also make us vulnerable for influencing attempts of someone else.
This research will focus on the more subtle effects of social influence which are indirect and
outside consciousness. Therefore the effects of the Foot-in-the-door (FIDT) and Door-in-the-
face (DIFT) techniques will be investigated, which are influence techniques with reverse
procedures of each other. Like many influence strategies the Foot-in-the-door strategy
presents a small initial request which is difficult to refuse. Compliance with the first request
induces the self-perception of being a person who complies with these kinds of requests. This
self-perception increases the chance of compliance to the more substantial target request. On
the other hand the Door-in-the-face technique is working by first making an excessive request
which most likely will be rejected and then asking the more moderated favor which is the
target request. It is generally supposed that this influence technique is working due to the fact
that the influencer is making an obvious concession by down-sizing the initial request
(Cialdini et al., 1975).
According to Cialdini (1975) the FIDT and DIFT are equally effective in compliance gaining.
In contrast to this claim this experiment predicts that they are not equally effective in
compliance gaining, due to the amount of processing they require. The FIDT procedure might
lead to less processing in comparison to the Door-in-the-face procedure. The Foot-in-the-door
procedure might function more automatically and therefore requires less mental effort. The
sequence of requests is in a kind of ‘flow’ which might lead to less thinking as opposed to the
DIFT. The Door-in-the-face procedure might involve more mental effort because after the
rejection of the first request one might be willing to make a concession. One might feel the
normative strain to match the concession of the downsized third request, which requires a
certain amount of mental effort.
5
Literature suggests that the effectiveness of a persuasion attempt can be moderated by general
forms of affect such as mood (Mitchell, 2000). However, mood is a broad term and may
contain many different states. In current literature about moods scholars have generally
defined positive mood as happy and negative mood as sad (Bless, Mackie & Schwarz, 1992;
Mitchell, 2000; Wegner & Petty, 1994). This study will examine the effects of happy
(positive) and sad (negative) moods, due to the fact that previous research suggests that a
positive mood will lead to less cognitive processing and a negative mood will increase one’s
cognitive effort (Mitchell, 2000). So, a positive mood will lead to less cognitive processing
compared to a negative mood. One’s amount of processing is of importance due to the fact
that it has an effect on the type of message processing one is using and therefore on the
effectiveness of the influence technique.
There are two types of message processing, systematic and heuristic message processing.
Systematic processing is characterized by a careful and effortful evaluation of the message
which requires high cognitive effort (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Heuristic message processing
on the other hand concerns making use of heuristic cues (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Eagly and
Chaiken (1993) argued that this type of reasoning is a limited mode of information processing
which requires little cognitive effort. Moreover, heuristic processing occurs when message
receivers make use of mental shortcuts instead of issue relevant thinking to determine their
attitude (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). So, the type of processing is of importance concerning the
effectiveness of the influence technique. Thus, literature suggests that a person’s mood state
will influence one’s amount of processing which will affect the effectiveness of the influence
technique. This research will test the assumption of Mitchell (2000) that mood affects the
effectiveness of the influence technique. Moreover, we expect that amount of processing will
function as a mediator variable in this relationship and therefore could explain the amount of
effect on the dependent variable compliance.
This research additionally investigates the role of buying motivation (positive/ negative). A
positive buying motivation is represented by chewing gum and a negative buying motivation
by painkillers. Due to the fact that we expect that buying motivation will influence one’s
amount of processing as well, which would mean that the effectiveness of an influence
technique might also dependent on one’s buying motivation. This effect could be caused due
to the fact that a negative buying motivation leads to more processing (less obvious or
impulsive purchase?) as opposed to a positive buying motivation. Besides, we expect that in
this relationship amount of processing will function as a mediator variable as well and
therefore explains the amount of effect on compliance.
To conclude, this research investigates the following main research question: which influence
technique the Foot-in-the-door technique or the Door-in-the-face technique is most effective
in compliance gaining? and is there a moderating effect of mood and buying motivation on
this relationship?
6
2. Theoretical framework In this chapter relevant literature related to social influence, the Foot-in-the-door technique,
the Door-in-the-face technique, the influence of mood, the influence of buying motivation
and the role of automaticity in the process of influencing one’s behavior will be discussed.
Additionally, this theoretical framework includes hypotheses about the relationships between
variables, which are illustrated by figures of a potential mediator variable amount of
processing. Finally, the research model is displayed in Figure 2.4 to give an overview of all
variables involved in this experiment.
2.1 Social influence
The research field of social influence is known for the demonstration and explanation of
psychological manifestations, which are often occurring in direct response to open social
forces. In the history of this field of study some of the most memorable researches are those in
which participants are struggling to understand and react in line with their own judgments and
the external pressure of doing different. Probably the most well know researches are those
conducted by Milgram (1974) about obedience and authority, in which a man was driven very
far by a stranger wearing a lab coat and Asch (1956) about a line- judgment conformity
experiment, in which a man is confused by an incorrect consensus against the chance of an
incorrect own observation. As in many classical illustrations the targets of influence were
faced with explicit social forces that are inside the conscious awareness of that particular
person. In contrast Freedman and Fraser (1966) conducted a renewing research about the
Foot-in-the-door technique, which is an example of a compliance gaining technique without
open pressure; they have revealed the more subtle aspects of social influence. In the past few
years scholars tend to investigate the more subtle effects of social influence which are indirect
and outside one’s consciousness.
According to Cialdini and Goldstein (2002) there are multiple social influence techniques
which can be performed in order to gain compliance to a certain request. Compliance is
referring to a particular response which is agreement to a particular kind of request. The
request could be either explicit (charitable donations) in which one is by example asked to
donate money or implicit (political advertisements) in which the qualities of the political
candidate are highlighted but one is not directly asked to vote for this politician. Although in
both situations the persuasion target is aware of the fact being encouraged to react in a desired
way (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). In addition, according to Cialdini and Goldstein (2004)
there are six basic influence principles which explain how a person might influence another;
these principles can be labeled as: liking, reciprocation, commitment and consistency,
scarcity, social validation (social proof) and authority.
Furthermore, diverse influence techniques have been studied during the past decades,
including the Foot-in-the-door technique and the Door-in-the-face technique (Janssen, Fennis
& Pruyn, 2008). Both influence strategies increase behavioral compliance by means of
sequential requests. In case of the Foot-in-the-door technique (FITD) the first request will be
small; so many people would comply with it. This request is followed by a second or third,
larger, request which is the target request (Dillard, Hunter & Burgoon, 1984).
7
The Door-in-the-face technique (DIFT) has the opposite procedure of the FITD. The initial
request should be quite large, so most people would reject it. Subsequently, the second or
third, target request will consist of asking for compliance to a smaller, more moderate request
in comparison to the first request. Thus, in both techniques the second or third request is the
target behavior (Dillard, Hunter & Burgoon, 1984). Both influence techniques will be more
thoroughly discussed in the following paragraphs.
2.2 The Foot-in-the-door technique
The Foot-in-the-door technique is based on the heuristic principle of commitment and
consistency and is a compliance gaining strategy aimed at taking advantage of one’s basic
desire for consistency (Freedman & Fraser, 1966). Freedman and Fraser (1966) investigated
the Foot-in-the-door technique as a procedure in order to increase compliance with a certain
request or favor and found that gaining one’s compliance with a small request significantly
increases that chance one complies with a subsequent larger request. Thereafter, several
studies examined the effect of the Foot-in-the-door technique and have shown that the
employment of this influence technique in general leads to increased compliance, mainly due
to the fact that people are willing to behave consistently across situations (Burger, 1999).
Like many influence strategies the Foot-in-the-door strategy presents a small initial request
which is difficult to refuse. Compliance with the first request induces the self-perception of
being a person who complies with these kinds of requests. This self-perception increases the
chance of compliance to the more substantial second target request. According to Freedman
and Fraser (1966) is the shift in one’s self-perception functioning as a mediator of this
influence technique. In addition, several studies which examined the effect of the Foot-in-the-
door technique have shown that the employment of this influence technique in general leads
to an increased compliance, mainly due to the fact that people are willing to behave
consistently across situations (Burger, 1999). In addition, Cialdini and Trost (1998) argued
that people have a strong need to enhance their self-concept by means of behaving
consistently with their beliefs, actions and statements (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). This
assumption is the basis of a lot of recent studies in the field of compliance gaining research.
However, the most commonly used theoretical framework for the FITD is the self- perception
theory of Bem (1967). According to Bem (1967) people draw conclusions about own attitudes
and beliefs in the same way as they do about the expectations of others. The core of this
theory can be expressed by the following quote; ‘individuals come to know their own
attitudes, emotions, and other internal states partially by inferring from observations of their
own behavior and/ or the situation in which this behavior occurs’ (Bem, 1972, p.2). In case
one’s behavior is adopted in freedom of choice the conclusion will be that he or she has
caused their own behavior. Moreover, this perception of one’s self-motivated behavior will
cause a change in one’s self concept. In addition, Freedman and Fraser (1966) suggested the
following statement concerning the explanation of their research results: ‘What may occur is a
change in the person’s feelings about getting involved or about taking action. Once he has
agreed to the request, this attitude may change. He may become, in his own eyes, the kind of
person who does this sort of things, who agrees to requests made by strangers, who takes
action on things he believe in, who cooperates with good causes’(p. 201).
8
Finally, let’s illustrate the FIDT with an example of a fundraiser who is approaching you on
the street. The fundraiser asks if you are willing to answer a few questions about his charity
work (initial request). Then, after you answered these seemingly harmless questions the
charity worker will ask you to support by donating money (Janssen, Fennis & Pruyn, 2008).
According to Burger (1999) the chance that a person will donate money is greater as opposed
to asking for the donation right away. Thus, one effective way in order to obtain compliance
to a request is by starting with a small request, and then move on to the second larger request,
which is the target request. This research contains three sequential requests which are aimed
at gaining compliance with the third (target) request.
2.3 The Door-in-the-face technique
In contrast to the FIDT there is a method which has the exact opposite procedure (Cialdini et
al., 1975). This method is called the Door-in-the-face technique and works by first making an
excessive request which most likely will be rejected and then asking the more moderated
favor which is the target request. It is generally supposed that this influence technique works
due to the fact that the influencer makes an obvious concession by down-sizing the initial
request (Cialdini et al., 1975). In addition there is evidence in literature suggesting that this
influence technique would be effective in gaining compliance. According to Gouldner (1960)
the DIFT is based on the heuristic principle of reciprocity, which is in fact a rooted motivation
to return a favor. Furthermore, Gouldner (1960) is suggesting that a norm of reciprocity exist
in all societies and could be simply explained by ‘you should give benefits to those who give
benefits.’ (p.170). Cialdini et. al., (1975) argued that this norm of reciprocity causes one’s
need to make a concession in return and complying with the milder second request.
Furthermore, Cialdini et al., (1975) argued that the norm of reciprocity also govern other
types of social exchange and states that the norm of reciprocity could simply be explained by
‘you make concession to those who make concession to you’, which has an important
function in society due to the fact that it often happens in conversations or negotiations that
one starts with demands which are not acceptable for the other. Then, in order to achieve
common goals compromise is crucial. Thus, the DIFT strategy could be compared to a
bargaining strategy (Cialdini et al., 1975).
Despite there is no implicit rule that a compromise by one should be reciprocated by the other
there are many examples of reciprocal concessions in our language ‘give and take’, ‘meeting
the other halfway’ etc. (Cialdini et al., 1975). So, it seems that by first asking an extreme
request which will probably be refused and then asking the smaller downsized request, the
other party feels a normative strain to match the concession. In addition, according to Burger
(1986) it appears that by means of rejection of the first request the anchor point against which
the judgment is made could change. The chance that the second request is falling in one’s
range of acceptance is increased in case the anchor point is raised by the first request.
9
According to Cialdini (1975) the FIDT and DIFT are equally effective in compliance gaining.
In contrast to this claim this research predicts that they are not equally effective in compliance
gaining, due to the amount of cognitive processing they require, displayed in Figure 2.1.
There is currently no literature available which describes a potential difference in amount of
cognitive processing between the Foot-in-the-door and the Door-in-the-face technique. The
prediction in this study is based on the fact that the sequential request procedure differs,
which requires a different amount of processing. The FIDT procedure might lead to less
processing in comparison to the Door-in-the-face procedure. The Foot-in-the-door procedure
might function more automatically and therefore requires less mental effort. The sequence of
requests is in a kind of ‘flow’ which might lead to less thinking as opposed to the DIFT. The
Door-in-the-face procedure might involve more mental effort because after the rejection of
the first request one might be willing to make a concession. One might feel the normative
strain to match the concession of the downsized third request, which requires a certain amount
of mental effort. Additionally, we predict that the relationship between type of influence
technique and compliance is mediated by one’s amount of processing.
Hypothesis 1a: The FIDT results in a greater compliance as opposed to the DIFT.
Hypotheses 1b: The relationship between type of influence technique and compliance is
mediated by one’s amount of processing.
Influence technique: Compliance FIDT vs. DIFT
Amount of processing
Figure 2.1 Predicted mediation of amount of processing
2.4 The influence of mood
Communication scholars already paid attention to the influence of mood in the persuasion
process. According to Dillard and Meijnders (2002) the effects of discrete emotions can be
significant. However, these effects are not limited to mere discrete emotions. Mitchell (2000)
argued that the effectiveness of a persuasive message could be affected by one’s mood, which
is a general form of affect. A positive mood leads to less cognitive effort and a negative mood
increases one’s cognitive effort (Mitchell, 2000), which affects the effectiveness of the
influence technique. Furthermore, Mackie and Worth (1989) argued that one’s ability to
process a persuasive message is obstructed by one’s positive mood. Thus, one in a positive
mood is not able to systematically process the persuasive message, which increases the
effectiveness of the influence technique. Since this claim, more and more literature is
proposing that one’s mood moderates persuasive message effects.
10
According to Frijda (1993) in literature moods are considered as affective experiences that are
persistent and are lacking a particular cognitive referent. So, as opposed to an emotional state,
moods tend to be more lasting and the experience is generalizable to more than only the affect
causing event. In addition, in current literature about mood effects on persuasion positive
moods are being induced as happy and negative moods as sad (Bless, Mackie & Schwarz,
1992; Mitchell, 2000; Wegener & Petty, 1994). Besides, neutral mood inductions appear to be
without affective content (Bless et al., 1992; Wegener et al., 1995). In the experiment of
Bohner and Weinerth (2001) respondents were asked to recall a fearful life event to induce
negative mood. Finally, it is of importance to mention that most studies share the assumption
that mood effects are generalizable beyond the affect-inducing stimulus.
Previous research concerning possible mood effects in the persuasion process were mainly
focused on how one’s mood affects one’s type of processing when faced with a persuasive
message. This is often related to the heuristic-systematic model of persuasion of Chaiken
(1980). This model states that there are two types of message processing named systematic
and heuristic message processing. Systematic processing is by a careful and effortful
evaluation of the message (high cognitive effort) (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Heuristic message
processing is concerning message recommendations making use of heuristic cues (low
cognitive effort) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Furthermore, Eagly and Chaiken (1993) argued
that this type of reasoning is a limited mode of information processing, which requires little
cognitive effort. Moreover, heuristic processing occurs when message receivers are making
use of mental shortcuts instead of issue relevant thinking to determine their attitude (Eagly &
Chaiken, 1993).
So, literature claims that the effectiveness of a persuasion attempt can be moderated by
general forms of affect such as mood (Mitchell, 2000) due to the fact that a positive mood
leads to less cognitive effort and a negative mood increases one’s cognitive effort (Mitchell,
2000). One’s amount of processing is of importance due to the fact that it has an effect on the
type of message processing one is using. Worth and Mackie (1987) argued that people in
positive mood lack the cognitive ability to process a message systematically and according to
Bohner et al., (1992) they lack the motivation for systematic processing. Furthermore,
literature states that a positive mood results in less systematic processing and a negative mood
increases systematic processing.
According to the above mentioned literature a person’s mood state influences one’s amount of
processing which affects the effectiveness of the influence technique. This research test this
assumption of Mitchell (2000) that positive mood leads to less cognitive effort and test a
potential moderating effect of mood on the relationship between type of influence technique
and compliance. Moreover, we predict that amount of processing functions as a mediator
variable and therefore qualifies the effect of mood on compliance, displayed in Figure 2.2.
Hypothesis 2a: A positive mood results in a greater compliance as opposed to negative mood.
Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between mood and compliance is mediated by amount of
processing.
11
Hypothesis 2c: Mood moderates the relationship between type of influence technique and
compliance.
Amount of processing
Type of influence technique Compliance
FIDT vs. DIFT
Mood
Figure 2.2 Predicted mediation of amount of processing and moderation of mood
2.5 The influence of buying motivation
This research additionally investigates a potential moderating effect of buying motivation
(positive/ negative). A positive buying motivation could be represented by products such as
chewing gum, sweets and chocolate and a negative buying motivation could be represented by
products such as painkillers, nose spray and eye drops. This because we expect that buying
motivation influences the effect of the conducted type of influence technique on compliance
as well, which would mean that the effectiveness of an influence technique might also
dependent on one’s buying motivation. This effect might be caused due to the fact that a
negative buying motivation leads to more processing (less obvious or impulsive purchase?),
which affects the effectiveness of the influence technique. Besides, we expect that amount of
processing functions as a mediator variable in this relationship and therefore might explain the
amount of effect on compliance, displayed in Figure 2.3. Furthermore, we expect that due to a
lower amount of processing one is less critical as opposed to a high amount of processing,
which might result in greater compliance.
Hypothesis 3a: A positive buying motivation results in a greater compliance as opposed to a
negative buying motivation.
Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between buying motivation and compliance is mediated by
one’s amount of processing.
12
Hypothesis 3c: Buying motivation moderates the relationship between type of influence
technique and compliance.
Amount of processing
Type of influence technique Compliance
FIDT vs. DIFT
Buying motivation
Figure 2.3 Predicted mediation of amount of processing and moderation of buying motivation
2.6 Automaticity
Current research in the field of persuasion is increasingly emphasizing processes that are
subtle and outside people’s awareness (Janssen, Fennis & Pruyn, 2008). In addition, Cialdini
and Goldstein (2004) argued that the notion of automaticity has been forwarded as the key of
all influence. When people are confronted with a social influence technique it appears that
instead of a perceptive awareness of the situation people tend to respond ‘thoughtless’
(Janssen, Fennis & Pruyn, 2008). In this situation of decreased mental alertness people tend to
rely on habit and routine and are therefore making use of mental shortcuts or simple heuristics
in order to make a decision. In this research we predict that a low amount of processing
results in a greater compliance due to the fact that people respond more ‘thoughtless’ as
opposed to a high amount of processing.
13
Amount of processing
Influence technique: C Compliance
FIDT vs. DIFT
Mood Buying motivation
Figure 2.4 Research model Moderated Mediation
14
3. Methodology
This chapter presents the research methodology and starts with the explanation of the
experimental research design including the twelve research conditions. Then, the procedure of
this experiment is discussed and the experiment will be further explained by the measures that
are conducted in this research. Then, the sampling technique and research sample are
explained. Finally, the reliability of the constructs and the participants are specified, which is
determined after the execution phase of the study.
3.1 Experimental design
As displayed in Table 3.1 this research has an experimental 3x2x2 between-subjects factorial
design. The first factor is mood (positive/ negative/ neutral); the second factor is buying
motivation (positive/ negative); and the third factor is type of influence technique (Foot-in-
the-door technique (FIDT)/ Door-in-the-face-technique (DIFT). This research design
including twelve conditions will examine the influence of these three factors on one’s attitude
towards the product and compliance to a request . Finally, the control condition (neutral
mood) is of importance in order to measure any difference of the positive/ negative mood
manipulations opposed to no mood manipulation, which will generate some insight in the
amount of effect of the mood manipulations.
Table 3.1 Experimental research design
Positive buying motivation Negative buying motivation
FIDT DIFT FIDT DIFT
Positive mood 1 2 3 4
Negative mood 5 6 7 8
Neutral mood
(control condition)
9 10 11 12
15
3.2 Procedure
Experimental research is also called a true experiment, which is an experiment where one
variable at the time is manipulated and the rest of the variables are controlled/ randomized. In
this research three variables; type of influence technique, mood and buying motivation are
manipulated in order to determine their effect on compliance. Except those manipulations the
rest of the experiment will be identical in order to make sure that some kind of effect is
actually caused by the manipulation and not due to other differences between conditions. The
goal of this experiment is to demonstrate causality.
The execution of this experiment takes place face-to-face, because the sequential requests of
the FIDT and DIFT cannot be properly executed in an online design. The total experiment is
displayed in Appendix I. Furthermore, a major part of the respondents is Dutch therefore the
experiment is translated into Dutch, in order to ensure that participants understand the content.
The translated experiment is displayed in Appendix II.
Respondents are randomly assigned to one of the twelve research conditions. After a short
introduction respondents are asked to recall a life event of the past month which made them
very happy (sad). According to Bohner and Weinerth (2001) this manipulation will put people
in a positive (negative) mood. This mood manipulation is essential in order to generate a
preexisting mood which is unrelated to the stimulus. The control condition in this experiment
will not experience any mood manipulation. According to literature neutral mood inductions
appear to be without affective content (Bless et al., 1992; Wegener et al., 1995).
Subsequently, the present mood state of the respondent is measured, which operates as a
manipulation check.
Then, an image of either chewing gum or pain relievers is displayed. The product is also
shown to the respondent in real life; the product is visible and touchable which makes the
following questions more ‘alive’. Where chewing gum implies a positive buying motivation
and painkillers implies a negative buying motivation (displayed in Appendix III). There is
chosen for these types of products because in the Netherlands they are comparable in price
(€1, 20), color, availability and level of consumer involvement. Both products are available in
the range of products (private brand) of the same supermarket company. There is consciously
chosen for a private brand due to the fact that there is no strong brand preference involved.
Subsequently, is asked whether the respondent has ever bought a similar product.
Next, three sequential request are made. In case of the Foot-in-the-door condition the first
request is the smallest request, which asks the participant to write down some advantages of
this product. The middle request is about the question if they would recommend this product
to family and friends. The third request is ‘Suppose that this product is being sold in a
supermarket at the price of €1, 20. Would you buy this product when you need it?’ which is
the actual target request. The target request is the same in the Door-in-the-face condition, but
the procedure is reversed. The DIFT starts with the greatest request; if the participant is
willing to sell 10 of these products to friends and relatives. These ten products are actually
shown to the respondent. The middle request asks the participant to write down some
advantages and disadvantages of this product. The third, target request, is in fact a downsized
request in comparison to the previous requests.
16
Thereafter, the respondent is asked to rate the product properties of the product through eight
items (e.g. high quality/ poor quality) in order to measure their attitude towards the product.
Then, the respondent’s amount of processing is measured by means of three items.
Respondents are asked to indicate how deeply they have thought when answering the
questions about the product in order to measure their amount of processing (e.g. I have
consciously thought about my answers/ I have not consciously thought about my answers).
Subsequently, the participant is asked to indicate their feeling of being influenced during this
study, which might be interesting in relation to the outcomes of this experiment. Next, there
are three demographical questions about the participant’s gender, age and highest level of
education. Finally, the participants were thanked for their participation in this research.
3.3 Measures
This paragraph discusses the conducted measures in this study concerning the manipulation
check, the potential mediator variable, the potential moderator variables and demographics.
Mood
Mood was measured by a eight-item seven-point semantic differential scale in order to
measure the affective mood sate of the respondent at that particular moment in time. This
scale is original to Allen and Janiszewski (1989), who reported an Alpha of .72 of this scale.
Respondents are asked to respond to the following sentence: ‘At this moment I am feeling’.
The following bipolar adjectives are used in this measurement instrument: relaxed/ tensed,
bad/ good, rested/ tired, distracted/ focused, pleasant/ unpleasant, sad/ happy, positive/
negative and angry/ cheerful.
Amount of processing
Amount of processing was measured by a three-item, seven-point semantic differential scale,
making use of bipolar opposites. Respondents are asked to indicate their amount of processing
when they answered the previous questions about the product. The three opposites in this
measurement instrument are; I have consciously thought about my answers/ I have not
consciously thought about my answers, I made little considerations/ I made many
considerations and I was thinking a lot/ I was thinking a little.
Compliance
Compliance was measured by a three-item, seven-point semantic differential scale.
Compliance was measured in the Foot-in-the-door or the Door-in-the-face procedure, which
both consists of three sequential requests. The influence techniques have reversed procedures.
The FID procedure starts with the smallest request, the third request is the actual target
request, which is a greater request. The DIF procedure starts with the greatest request, the
third request is the target request, which is a smaller (downsized) request. The target request is
the same in both procedures: ‘Suppose that this product is being sold in a supermarket at the
price of €1, 20. Would you buy this product when you need it?’
Demographics
This study included three demographical questions. Respondents are asked to indicate their
gender, age and highest level of education.
17
3.4 Research sample
The sampling technique that is used to collect participants is convenience sampling, which is
a non-probability sampling technique in which respondents are selected due to their
accessibility to the researcher (e.g. friends, family, fellow students). The research sample is
not representative for the entire population. This representation is not required in this
experiment due to the fact that it is not expected that research outcomes are depending on the
demographical characteristics of the respondent.
However, it is of importance to include several respondent groups in the research sample
because in case of one respondent group (e.g. students) the collected data and corresponding
outcomes are only representative for that particular respondent group. In case of a more
diverse research sample, research outcomes are more generalizable. In order to obtain
informational data about 20 participants are essential in each research condition. Therefore, at
least N=240 respondents are participating in this study.
3.5 Reliability
In this section, the intended constructs are tested on their internal consistency by means of a
reliability analysis (Cronbach’s alpha). Table 3.2 gives an overview of the two constructs,
their corresponding reliability, numbers of items and the number of deleted items. Both items
are measured on a 7- point Likert scale. The overview of constructs displayed in Table 3.2
shows that both constructs were acceptable concerning their internal consistency.
Table 3.2 Reliability analysis constructs
Cronbach’s alpha Items Items deleted
Current mood .86 8 0
Amount of processing .73 3 0
18
3.6 Participants
The total number of participants in this experiment was N=240 and consisted of 143 males
(59,6%) and 97 females (40,4%). The experiment included twelve conditions, so each
condition contained 20 participants. Table 3.3 displays the gender, age category and highest
level of education of the participants in this experiment. The research sample consists for
59,3% out of males and for 40,4% out of females, which means that men are over-
represented in this research sample. There is also an over- representation of young people in
the age category of 15- 24 years old and only two respondents in the highest age category of
65+ years old. In addition most respondents followed further education after secondary school
from which 33,3 percent have achieved a bachelor or master degree. However, due to the fact
that this research concerns an experimental design a true reflection of the total population is
not essential in order to obtain valuable information. This research sample has enough
diversity in order to draw valuable conclusions.
Table 3.3 Participants characteristics
Gender Age category Highest level of education
Male
143 (59,6%)
15- 24
111 (46,3%)
Elementary school
2 (0,8%)
Female
97 (40,4%)
25- 34
37 (15,4%)
Secondary school
66 (27,5%)
35- 44 26 (10,8%)
Vocational education
92 (38,3%)
45- 54 34 (14,2%)
Bachelor degree
61 (25,4%)
55- 64 30 (12,5%)
Master degree
19 (7,9%)
65+ 2 (0,8%)
19
4.Results
This chapter discusses the results of this study. First, is discussed whether the mood
manipulation functioned as predicted. Subsequently, the collected data is analyzed in order to
determine if the hypotheses are confirmed or rejected. Additional analyses are conducted with
the demographical information of the respondents and finally, the potential mediating role of
amount of processing is discussed.
4.1 Manipulation check
In this experiment was attempted to manipulate the mood state of the respondent by means of
the first question which requested the participant to recall a happy or sad event of the past
month. According to Bohner and Weinerth (2001) this recall of a happy or sad life event leads
to a more happy/ sad mood. Subsequently, a question was added to measure the current mood
state of the respondent in order to check if the previous mood manipulation functioned as
predicted. This research contained a positive, negative and a no mood manipulation condition.
Each research condition consisted of 80 respondents who answered the current mood question
on a 7- point Likert scale. The purpose of this manipulation was obtaining two respondent
groups, one group in a positive mood and one group in a negative mood. The mean mood
scores in both groups are compared in order to check if the manipulation was successful. In
the positive mood condition the mean mood score was (M = 5.14, SD = .81) and in the
negative mood condition the mean mood score was (M = 4.60, SD = 1.25). There is a
significant difference between the mean mood scores in the positive mood condition and the
negative mood condition F(2, 237) = 2.94, p = < .05, SE = .032. Therefore, can be concluded
that in the positive mood condition the mean mood score was significantly higher compared
to the mean mood score in the negative mood condition and was therefore successful in
creating two different mood groups in this experiment. Additionally in case of the no mood
manipulation which functioned as a control condition the mean mood score was (M = 5.02,
SD = 1.08), which lies in the middle compared to the mean mood scores of the manipulated
conditions.
4.2 Main effects
The upcoming sections are discussing the results of the tested hypotheses concerning main
effects, interaction effects and additional analysis. As shown in Table 4.1, this study
discovered three significant effects. Results indicated that buying motivation significantly
influenced compliance. In addition, there is found a significant interaction effect between type
of influence technique and mood and a significant interaction effect between gender and
buying motivation. Furthermore, the mediation analysis showed that there was no mediating
effect of amount of processing on the relationship between type of influence technique and
compliance or on the other investigated relationships in this study.
20
Table 4.1 Results of the conducted ANOVA’s
Compliance Amount of processing
F p F p
Influence technique < 1 ns < 1 ns
Mood < 1 ns < 1 ns
Buying motivation 24.39 < .001 1.33 ns
Type of influence technique*Mood 2.78 < .05 - -
Type of influence technique*Buying motivation < 1 ns - -
Type of influence technique * Mood * Buying
motivation
< 1 ns - -
Gender * Buying motivation 6.21 < .01 - -
Note. ns = not significant
For a proper functioning of the Door-in-the-face technique it was of importance that the first
request of the sequential requests, which asked the respondent; if they are willing to buy 10 of
these products and sell them to friends and relatives, would be rejected by the majority of the
participants. Results indicated that 92,5 percent of the respondents rejected the first request,
which is a majority part of the participants. So, we can conclude that the Door-in-the-face
technique worked out well. In addition, the study included a question which asked the
participant: ‘Did you feel influenced in this research?’ This question was included due to the
fact that in case one is feeling influenced this might affect the research outcomes. Results
indicated that 89,2 % of the respondents reported that they did not felt influenced in this
research. The other 10,8 % of the respondents were not aware of the true manipulations in this
study.
21
4.2.1 Type of influence technique
This experiment tested a hypothesis concerning the type of influence technique namely: H1a:
The FIDT results in a greater compliance as opposed to the DIFT. In order to test H1a an
ANOVA (univariate analyses of variance) was conducted. The ANOVA results showed that
there was no significant effect of type of influence technique on one’s compliance to the
request F(1, 238) =
22
Hypothesis 2b concerns a
predicted mediation of
amount of processing in
the relationship between
mood and compliance. In
order to test this
hypothesis another
ANOVA was conducted
which examined the
influence of mood on
amount of processing.
The ANOVA results
showed that there was no
significant effect of mood
on amount of processing
F(1, 238) =
23
Hypothesis 3b concerns a predicted mediation of amount of processing in the relationship
between buying
motivation and
compliance. In order to
test this hypothesis another
ANOVA was conducted
which examined the
influence of buying
motivation on amount of
processing. The ANOVA
results showed that there
was no significant effect of
buying motivation on
amount of processing F(1,
238) = 1.33, p = ns, SE =
.082, displayed in Figure
4.4. The mediation is more
thoroughly discussed in
paragraph 4.5.
Figure 4.4 Effect of buying motivation on amount of processing
24
4.3 Interaction effects
As mentioned earlier there are some predictions about the potential moderating effect of mood
and buying motivation on the relationship between type of influence technique and
compliance. In this paragraph these hypotheses are tested by means of the ANOVA
(univariate analyses of variance) test.
In order to test hypothesis 2c and investigate if mood moderates the relationship between type
of influence technique and compliance an ANOVA was conducted. According to the results
there is a significant interaction between type of influence technique and mood F (3, 236) =
2.78, p = < .05. As shown in Figure 4.5, the Foot-in-the-door technique combined with a
positive mood results in a mean score on compliance of (M = 5.40, SD = .19). The FIDT
combined with a negative mood results in a mean score on compliance of (M = 4.75, SD =
.56). The Door-in-the-face technique combined with a positive mood results in a mean score
on compliance of (M = 5.10, SD = 2.00). The DIFT combined with a negative mood results in
a mean score on compliance of (M = 5.79, SD = 1.53). So, in case of a negative mood there is
a smaller difference between
the effectiveness of both
influence techniques. In case
of a positive mood there is a
greater difference in the
effectiveness of both influence
techniques. Participants in a
positive mood scored much
higher on compliance in the
FIDT condition as opposed to
the DIFT condition. Thus, the
FIDT condition is more
effective in case one is in a
positive mood. In addition, the
DIFT is more in effective in
case one is in a negative mood.
To conclude, hypothesis 2c is
confirmed.
Figure 4.5 Interaction between type of influence technique and mood
As a follow-up test, a Univariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to investigate if the
difference between the FIDT and the DIFT on compliance was significantly different in either
a positive or a negative mood condition. The results indicated that the difference on
compliance between the FIDT and the DIFT is marginally significant in case of a positive
mood F(3, 236) = 1.95, p = < .10. There is no significant difference on compliance between
the FIDT and the DIFT in case of a negative mood.
25
Hypothesis 3c stated: buying motivation moderates the relationship between type of influence
technique and compliance. An ANOVA was conducted and the results showed that there was
no significant interaction between type of influence technique and buying motivation F(3,
236) =
26
4.4 Additional analyses
In addition to the performed hypotheses tests there are some additional tests conducted with
the demographic data of the respondent (age, gender and highest level of education). These
tests are conducted in order to check if this information had an effect on the previous results
of this study.
Analysis showed that gender moderates the effect of buying motivation on compliance. The
ANOVA results showed that there was a significant moderating effect of gender on the
relationship between buying motivation and compliance F(3, 236) = 6.21, p = < .01. In
addition, there is found a significant interaction between gender and buying motivation F(3,
236) = 5.20, p = < .02. The mean score on compliance in case of males combined with a
positive buying motivation was (M = 4.65, SD = .20) and het mean score on compliance in
case of males combined with a negative buying motivation was (M = 5.27, SD = .24). On the
other hand the mean score on
compliance for females
combined with a positive
buying motivation was (M =
4.70, SD = .30) and the mean
score on compliance for
females combined with a
negative buying motivation
was (M = 6.43, SD = .24),
displayed in figure 4.6. This
figure demonstrates that in
case of a negative buying
motivation there is a much
greater difference in
compliance between men and
women. In case of a positive
buying motivation this
difference between men and
women is smaller. Figure 4.6 moderating effect of gender
As a follow-up test, a Univariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to investigate if the
difference between men and women on compliance was significantly different in either a
positive or negative buying motivation condition. Results showed that there was no significant
difference between men and women in case of a positive buying motivation F(3, 236) =
27
4.5 Mediation effects
In the theoretical framework was predicted that amount of processing mediates the effect on
compliance. This mediation was predicted concerning the relationships between: type of
influence technique and compliance, mood and compliance, buying motivation and
compliance. The potential mediating role of amount of processing was tested by the criterions
of Baron and Kenny (1986), which suggested a research procedure to determine whether there
is a mediation effect. To determine a mediation, four criteria must be fulfilled:
- The independent variable must affect the dependent variable(s);
- The independent variable must affect the mediator;
- The mediator must affect the dependent variable(s);
- A significant influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable(s) weakens in
the presence of the mediator.
Table 4.2 Results of the mediation analysis
Moderator variables Potential mediator
Type of
influence
technique
Mood
Buying
motivation
Amount of
processing
β p β p β p β p
Compliance < 1 ns < 1 ns 1.18 < .01 < 1 ns
Note. ns = not significant
Table 4.2 displays the results of the mediation analysis. The results indicate that there is no
significant effect of type of influence technique on compliance (β = < 1, ns). The first
criterion is not fulfilled and therefore is concluded that there is no mediation of amount of
processing in this relationship. Hypothesis 1b is rejected. In addition, there is no significant
effect of mood on compliance (β = < 1, ns). With the failure of the first criterion of Baron and
Kenny (1986) is concluded that there is no mediation of amount of processing in this
relationship. Hypothesis 2b is rejected. Furthermore, this table indicates that buying
motivation had a significant effect on compliance (β = 1.18, p = < .01). However, the effect of
buying motivation on the potential mediator amount of processing is not significant (β = < 1,
ns). The second criterion of Baron and Kenny (1986) is not fulfilled and therefore is
concluded that there is no mediation of amount of processing in this relationship. Hypothesis
3b is rejected as well.
28
5.Discussion
In this chapter, the results of the study will be discussed. The acceptance or rejection of the
hypotheses will be discussed in more detail, which is of importance in order to formulate a
clear answer to the main research question. Additionally, the limitations of the study and
suggestions for future research will be specified.
5.1 Discussion of the results
As shown in table 5.1, the study revealed three significant effects. Results indicated that
buying motivation significantly influenced compliance. In addition, there is found a
significant interaction between type of influence technique and mood. In addition to the
performed hypotheses tests there are some additional tests conducted concerning the
demographic data of the participants, in order to test whether this information affected the
previous results of the study. As a result of the additional tests there is found one significant
moderating effect of gender on the relationship between buying motivation and compliance.
Table 5.1 Significant effects
Compliance
F p
Buying motivation 24.39 < .001
Type of influence technique* Mood 2.78 < .05
Gender * Buying motivation 6.21 < .01
Regarding the functioning of both influence techniques, it was of importance that in case of
the Door-in-the-face technique the first request was rejected by the majority of the
participants. The results showed that 92,5 percent of the respondents rejected the first request.
Thus, we conclude that the Door-in-the-face procedure worked out well. Furthermore, a
question was added to the questionnaire which asked the respondent whether they felt
influenced in this research. This is important because it might affect the research outcomes.
The results of this question indicated that 89,2 % of the respondents reported that they did not
felt influenced in this research. The remaining percentage of the respondents was not aware of
the true manipulations.
29
Previously described results did not confirm hypothesis 1a which stated that the Foot-in-the-
door technique results in a greater compliance as opposed to the Door-in-the-face technique.
According to the results, there was no significant effect of type of influence technique on the
participant’s level of compliance. In both influence technique conditions the scores on
compliance were nearly the same. Therefore, hypothesis 1a is rejected. This outcome is in line
with the statement of Cialdini (1975) that the FIDT and the DIFT are equally effective in
gaining compliance. However, in contrast to the prediction in this research that both influence
techniques differ in compliance gaining due to the amount of processing they require.
According to Cialdini and Goldstein (2002) there are multiple social influence techniques
which can be performed in order to gain compliance to a certain request. There are six basic
influence principles which explain how a person might influence another. These principles
can be labeled as liking, reciprocation, commitment and consistency, scarcity, social
validation (social proof) and authority (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2002). The outcome of this
study indicated no difference in compliance gaining between the Foot-in-the-door technique,
based on the principle of commitment and consistency and the Door-in-the-face technique,
based on the principle of reciprocation. Perhaps the other principles of influence are more
suitable for compliance gaining. Therefore, it is interesting to investigate the effects of the
other principles on compliance in future research.
The mediation analysis showed that there was no mediation of amount of processing in the
relationship between type of influence technique and compliance. Therefore, hypothesis 1b
which predicted a mediation of amount of processing in this relationship is rejected. There is
no evidence for a difference in amount of processing between the Foot-in-the-door technique
and the Door-in-the-face technique.
This study tested hypothesis 2a which stated that a positive mood would result in a greater
compliance as opposed to a negative mood. The previously described results did not confirm
this hypothesis. There was no significant difference in the participant’s level of compliance in
either a positive or negative mood state. Therefore, hypothesis 2a is rejected. This outcome
does not correspond with the statement of Mitchell (2000) who argued that one’s mood state
affects the effectiveness of the influence technique, resulting in a greater compliance due to a
greater effectiveness of the influence technique in case of a positive mood as opposed to a
negative mood. Furthermore, was predicted that amount of processing mediated the
relationship between mood and compliance (H2b). The mediation analysis showed that there
was no mediating effect of amount of processing in this relationship. There was no significant
difference in amount of processing between the positive or negative mood condition.
Therefore, hypothesis 2b is rejected. This outcome is not consistent with the findings of
Mitchell (2000) who stated that a person’s mood state will affect one’s amount of processing,
and more specifically that a positive mood state results in less cognitive effort as opposed to a
negative mood state.
Furthermore, the results indicated that there was a significant interaction between type of
influence technique and mood. In case of a negative mood there is a small difference between
the effectiveness of both influence techniques. However, in a positive mood state there is a
greater difference between the effectiveness of both influence techniques. Participants in a
positive mood state had a much greater compliance in the FIDT condition as opposed to the
DIFT condition.
30
The Univariate Analysis of Variance showed that the difference between the Foot-in-the-door
technique and the Door-in-the face technique was marginally significant in case of a positive
mood. There is no significant difference on compliance between the FIDT and the DIFT in
case of a negative mood. The Foot-in-the-door technique is more effective in case one is in a
positive mood. The Door-in-the-face technique is more effective in case one is in a negative
mood. Therefore, hypothesis 2c is confirmed (α = .10): mood moderates the relationship
between type of influence technique and compliance. Thus, there is evidence that mood
moderates this relationship, however this evidence is marginally significant.
This study also tested hypothesis 3a which stated that a positive buying motivation results in a
greater compliance as opposed to a negative buying motivation. The results showed that there
was a significant effect of buying motivation (positive/ negative) on compliance. Compliance
was significantly higher in case of a negative buying motivation. This outcome is not in
accordance with the hypothesis which predicted the opposite result of a greater compliance in
case of a positive buying motivation. Therefore, hypothesis 3a is rejected. Additionally,
hypothesis 3b predicted a mediation of amount of processing in the relationship between
buying motivation and compliance. A greater compliance in case of a positive buying
motivation due to a decreased amount of processing, which makes someone less critical about
the request. The result of the mediation analysis showed that there was no mediating role of
amount of processing in this relationship. Therefore, hypothesis 3b is rejected. This study also
investigated a hypothesis concerning a potential moderating effect of buying motivation on
the relationship between type of influence technique and compliance (H3c). The results
showed that there was no moderating effect of buying motivation on this relationship and
hypothesis 3c is rejected.
A possible explanation for the outcomes concerning buying motivation might be the necessity
of the product. It might be that one is more critical towards a product with a positive buying
motivation, due to the fact that the purchase of the product is often pleasant but not necessary
and may be more impulsive. In case of a product with a negative buying motivation, the
purchase of the product is mostly based on a need, which makes the product (e.g. painkillers)
more useful and necessary in the eyes of the consumer. In addition, this outcome might be
explained by the reasoning that everybody occasionally needs painkillers, but not everybody
likes to chew gum.
As previously discussed, the results of the mediation analysis showed that there was no
mediation of amount of processing in the relationships between type of influence technique,
mood and buying motivation on compliance. Based on the outcomes, the mediating role of
amount of processing could be dismissed. However, there may be some remarks regarding the
measurement instrument of the participant’s amount of processing. The three-item
measurement instrument was self developed and might be not suitable for a true measurement
of one’s amount of processing. Therefore, it may be interesting to investigate the role of one’s
amount of processing again possibly with an already existing, more subtle and proven
measurement instrument in order to measure the participant’s true amount of processing and
reconsider the mediating role of amount of processing in future research.
31
In addition to the performed hypotheses tests there are some additional tests conducted
regarding the demographic data of the respondents. In order to test whether this information
affected the previous results. The results of the additional analyses indicated that there was a
significant moderating effect of gender on the relationship between buying motivation and
compliance. The effect of a negative buying motivation on compliance is much greater in case
of female respondents as opposed to male respondents. This result implies that hypothesis 3a
works out differently for males and females.
A possible explanation for the gender difference in case of a negative buying motivation
might be a difference in purchase behavior. It might be the case that in general women
purchase more products with a negative buying motivation as opposed to men. A lot of
women do necessary purchases for themselves, their boyfriend or husband, or their family. Of
course, men do these purchases as well, but perhaps not so often. Therefore, it might be more
likely that women buy a product with a negative buying motivation as opposed to men. This
could be old-fashioned reasoning but it is worth investigating in future research. Based on the
moderating effect of gender on the relationship between buying motivation and compliance,
all executed tests were tested on a potential moderating effect of gender. This was not the
case; gender only moderated the effect of the above reported relationship.
5.2 Limitations and future research
In this section, some of the limitations of the study will be discussed and potential future
research opportunities will be specified.
The first limitation of the current study might be the number of respondents. The number of
respondents in each research condition was 20. This is the minimum amount of respondents
required in order to obtain informational data. It would be useful in future research to increase
the number of participants per research condition (e.g. 40). The research outcomes would be
more solid in case of a greater number of respondents. Furthermore, there are some remarks
regarding the measurement instrument of the participant’s amount of processing. This three-
item measurement instrument was self developed and might be not suitable for a true
measurement of amount of processing. Therefore, it may be interesting to investigate the role
of one’s amount of processing again possibly with an already existing, more subtle
measurement instrument in order to measure the participant’s true amount of processing and
reconsider the mediating role of amount of processing in future research.
Additionally, this study demonstrated a gender difference on compliance in case of a negative
buying motivation. A potential explanation for this outcome might be a difference in purchase
behavior. It might be the case that in general women purchase more products with a negative
buying motivation as opposed to men. Many women do purchases for themselves, their
boyfriend or husband, or their family. Of course, men do these purchases as well, but perhaps
not so often. This could be old-fashioned reasoning but it is worth investigating in future
research.
32
In this study, chewing gum represented a positive buying motivation and painkillers
represented a negative buying motivation. It is likely that people consider those products as a
positive and a negative buying motivation, however this is not tested beforehand. It might be
useful in future research to pre- test this assumption. Additionally, it might be the case the
persons perceive products differently. Therefore, it is useful to investigate other products
which might be viewed as a positive (e.g. candy) and a negative (e.g. tampons) buying
motivation. A pre-research of buying motivation makes it possible to test if there are any
differences in results due to another product selection.
This study focused on two basic principles of influence: commitment & consistency and
reciprocity. According to Cialdini and Goldstein (2002) there are multiple social influence
techniques which can be performed for compliance gaining. According to Cialdini and
Goldstein (2004) there are six basic influence principles which explain how a person might
influence another; these principles can be labeled as liking, reciprocation, commitment and
consistency, scarcity, social validation (social proof) and authority. It might be the case that
there is a much greater effect of another principle of influence (e.g. liking) as opposed to
commitment & consistency and reciprocity on compliance. Therefore, it is useful to
investigate the effects of the other four principles of influence on compliance in future
research.
33
6. Conclusion
This chapter answers the main research question of the study: which influence technique the
Foot-in-the-door technique or the Door-in-the-face technique is most effective in compliance
gaining? and is there a moderating effect of mood and buying motivation on this relationship?
According to the results, the Foot-in-the-door technique does not result in a greater
compliance compared to the Door-in-the-face technique. This outcome is in line with the
statement of Cialdini (1975) that both influence techniques are equally effective in
compliance gaining. However, in contrast to the prediction in this research that they differ in
compliance gaining due to the amount of processing they require. Furthermore, the mediation
analysis showed that there was no mediating role of amount of processing in the relationship
between type of influence technique and compliance or in any other investigated relationship
in this study.
The research outcomes indicated a marginally significant moderating effect of positive mood
on the relationship between type of influence technique and compliance. There is a small
difference in compliance in case of a negative mood. However, there is a greater difference in
compliance in case of a positive mood. In case of a positive mood, there was a greater
compliance in the Foot-in-the-door condition as opposed to the Door-in-the-face condition.
Thus, the FIDT results in a greater compliance in case one is in a positive mood. Additionally,
there was a significant moderating effect of buying motivation on the relationship between
type of influence technique and compliance. Compliance was significantly greater in case of a
negative buying motivation compared to a positive buying motivation. Furthermore, the
results indicated a significant moderating effect of gender on the relationship between buying
motivation and compliance. The effect of a negative buying motivation on compliance is
much greater in case of female respondents.
To answer the main research question, both influence techniques are equally effective in
compliance gaining. Buying motivation moderated the relationship between type of influence
technique and compliance. Positive mood (marginally) moderated this relationship.
34
References
Ahtola, O.T. (1975). “The Vector model of Preferences: An alternative to the Fishbein
Model”, JMR, 12, 52-59.
Allen, C.T., Janiszewski, C.A. (1989). “Assessing the role of contingency awareness in
attitudinal conditioning with implications for advertising research”. JMR, 26, 30-43.
Asch, S.E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against
unanimous majority. Psychological Monogram, 416.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator- mediator variable distinction in Social
Psychological research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173- 1182.
Bem, D.J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance
phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183- 200.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press.
Bless, H., Mackie, D.H., & Schwartz, N. (1992). Mood effects on attitude judgments:
Independent effects of mood before and after message elaboration. Journal of Personality and
Social psychology, 63, 585-595.
Burger, J.M. (1986). Increasing Compliance by Improving the Deal: The that’s-not-all
technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2, 277- 283.
Burger, J.M (1999). “The foot-in-the-door-compliance procedure. A multiple-process analysis
and review”. Personality and Social Psychology review, 3, 303-325.
35
Bohner, G., Crow, K. Erb, H., Schwarz, N. (1992). Affect and persuasion: Mood effects on
the processing of message content and context cues and on subsequent behavior. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 511- 530.
Cialdini, R.B., Vincent, J.E., Lewis, S.K., Catalan, J. Wheeler, D., and Darby, B.L. (1975).
“Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206-215.
Cialdini, R.B. (1993). “Influence: Science and practice” (3rd
edition). New York, NY Harper
Collins.
Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J. (2002). The science and practice of persuasion. Cornell
University; an invited paper, 40-50.
Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J. (2004), “Social influence: Compliance and conformity”.
Annual review of Psychology, 55, 591- 621.
Cialdini, R.B., Trost, M.R. (1998). Social influence: social norms, conformity, and
compliance. The Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. DT Gilbert, ST Fiske, G Lindzey, 2:
151-92. Boston: McGraw-Hill. 4th
ed.
Dillard, J.P., Hunter, J.E. (1984). Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Meta analysis of
the foot-in-the-door and door-in-the face. Human Communication Research, 10, 88- 461.
Dillard, J.P., Hunter, J.E., Burgoon, M. (1984). Sequential- request persuasive strategies,
Meta-analysis of Foot-in-the-door and Door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 4,
461- 488.
Dillard, J.P., Meijnders, A. (2002). Persuasion and the structure of affect. The persuasion
handbook, 309- 328.
Eagly, A. H., Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Orlando, Fla: Harcourt Brace.
36
Freedman, J.L., Fraser, S.C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door
technique. J. Personal. Social Psychology, 4, 195- 202.
Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
Gouldner A.W. (1960). The norm of Reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161- 178.
Janssen L., Fennis, B.M., Pruyn, A.T.H. (2008). Straining the mental muscle: A resource
depletion account of the effectiveness of social influence techniques.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper & Row.
Mitchell, M. M. (2000) Able but not motivated? The relative effects of happy and sad mood
on persuasive message processing. Communication Monographs, 67, 215- 226.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determent of
argument based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847- 855.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, L. & Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting samples, Qualitative
research practice. A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 77- 108) Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., & Klein, D.J. (1994). Effects of mood on high elaboration attitude
change: The mediating role of likelihood judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology,
24, 25- 43.
Worth, L.T., Mackie, D.M. (1987). Cognitive mediation of positive affect in persuasion.
Social Cognition, 5.
37
Appendix I: Experiment
This appendix displays the English version of the experiment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear respondent,
Thank you for your participation in this research.
This experiment investigates a possible influence of mood, buying motivation and type of
influence technique on one’s attitude towards a product and compliance to a certain request.
This experiment will take approximately 10 minutes of your time and is anonymous. In case
you unfortunately decide that you are not willing to corporate in this research after the
completion of the experiment please send an e-mail to: [email protected].
Kind regards,
Lotte Sterling
University of Twente
Master Communication Studies
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mood manipulation
1. For this research it is desirable that each respondent starts this research in the same state of
mind and therefore I would ask you to recall a life event of the past month which made you
very happy (sad). Please go back to that moment, and take 3 minutes of your time to reach
that feeling again… (Bohner & Weinerth, 2001).
2. How long ago took this event place?
- Several days ago
- 1 week ago
- 2 weeks ago
- 3 weeks ago
- 4 weeks ago
mailto:l.sterlin